Debating with a creationist
February 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm by The Omnissiunt One.)
Scientifically illiterate as I am, I need some help arguing with a rather smug creationist whom I've encountered on the blog of the Mail journalist Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
He wrote to me: 'Identifying a pattern of relationship linking all living creatures does not imply a necessary cause, such as common ancestry, for that pattern. Remember, Darwin did not invent classification: the creationist Linnaeus did a century earlier. Linnaeus included humans amongst the primates. That is because classification is consistent with common design. So what we need is evidence to support common ancestry as a true explanation of this pattern. Fossils of common ancestors and transitional species would be a start. Do you know of any? Limitless artificial selection that breaks the boundaries of genetic homeostasis would need to be demonstrated too. Do you know of such an experiment? And it goes without saying that we should never, ever find “a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.” Oops.
Even if there was [sic] any evidence to support the common ancestry hypothesis, that does not mean that common ancestry arose as a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Common ancestry could be the result of front-loaded design or even guided evolution. So that means, atheists also need evidence that natural selection acting upon random mutations can transform a single-celled common ancestor into a human being. And where did the single-celled common ancestor come from? Atheists need to provide a naturalistic explanation for that too because if God just put it there then that destroys their entire worldview which revolves around the conviction that there is no God.'
Thanks in advance,
Omnissiunt One
He wrote to me: 'Identifying a pattern of relationship linking all living creatures does not imply a necessary cause, such as common ancestry, for that pattern. Remember, Darwin did not invent classification: the creationist Linnaeus did a century earlier. Linnaeus included humans amongst the primates. That is because classification is consistent with common design. So what we need is evidence to support common ancestry as a true explanation of this pattern. Fossils of common ancestors and transitional species would be a start. Do you know of any? Limitless artificial selection that breaks the boundaries of genetic homeostasis would need to be demonstrated too. Do you know of such an experiment? And it goes without saying that we should never, ever find “a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.” Oops.
Even if there was [sic] any evidence to support the common ancestry hypothesis, that does not mean that common ancestry arose as a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Common ancestry could be the result of front-loaded design or even guided evolution. So that means, atheists also need evidence that natural selection acting upon random mutations can transform a single-celled common ancestor into a human being. And where did the single-celled common ancestor come from? Atheists need to provide a naturalistic explanation for that too because if God just put it there then that destroys their entire worldview which revolves around the conviction that there is no God.'
Thanks in advance,
Omnissiunt One
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
